Sola Scriptura Question, Aimed Especially at Lutherans

[AugustTherese]

Hi Eric,
All of this has merit. In short, why only the written parts? Forgive me for answering your questions with a question: how is it that you know what Psalms 119 says, or Galatians 1:8 says? How do we know what David sang, or Paul said? Someone wrote it down.
We recognize, as your communion does, that the written word has a power and in fact inerrancy.
So, it probably comes down to what source are we sure of. Lutherans accept the seven ecumenical councils, to one degree or another depending on the synod. We accept the creeds as a matter of doctrine. These from the early Church have significant sway with us. They, too, are written down. The words of the Fathers also are significant for us - written down. There is a much higher level of trust in what has come to us written down.

Let’s keep in mind that scripture is not a god. It isn’t scripture that we worship. The word of God comes from the Word of God. This isn’t book worship. The bible doesn’t save, Grace does.
Further, we teach, our confessions say, there is “One Holy Church”. so Lutheranism is a tradition within that One Holy Church. the Keys belong to the Church, as does the authority to teach. We recognize the significant role the Bishop of Rome has played in the teaching role throughout the history of the Church. we also recognize that the Bishop of Rome is not the only bishop, and the Church is not only and exclusively bound to his authority.

Who said He, or we, only quote scripture? We refer, note in the BoC, to Tradition, too.

And while it is true Christ first singled out St. Peter, and his confession of faith, the power to bind and loose belongs to the whole Church.

Jon

Hey Jon,

Thanks again for getting back to me! I think the more important question to ask regarding Galatians 1:8 and Psalm 119 isn’t necessarily how do we know what was said or what was written, although that is extremely important, but how does one understand what was written or said in the proper and correct way. The written Word is inerrant and infallible as you said, but properly interpreting Scripture was not intended to be understood apart from the authority of the Church. One of the reasons Jesus established the Church was to form a oneness and unity, not only in the structural organism, but in the way it operates and MAINTAINS (emphasis only that unity, especially in understanding the full deposit of faith revealed in Christ later handed down to His apostles.

Does this mean you and I cannot properly exegete parts of Scripture? No, but the authority of the Church does protect itself from the inside out by confronting and rejecting heretical doctrines, especially those that distort the proper understanding of Scripture.

You say the Lutheran church accepts the seven Ecumenical Councils, “to one degree or another”. By what right, or by whose authority does the Lutheran church get to accept and/or reject what is contained in those councils? If Scripture alone, or the authority of Scripture alone, dictates what is doctrinally correct and/or incorrect in a Council, then what’s the point of having a Council? Could not the early church simply have pointed the Gnostics and Docetists to Scripture alone and they could all agree on what was written? Of course not, it’s not a matter of what was or wasn’t written, but how the inerrant written Word should be infallibly interpreted in the correct way. As the saying goes, the Holy Spirit used a select few fallible men to infallibly write Scripture, should not He use a select few fallible men to infallibly interpret the Scriptures (i.e. Apostles and their successors)?

Could you explain how “Lutheranism is a tradition within the One Holy Church”?

I meant to say that Lutheranism quotes Scripture only as it pertains to the final judging and appraising of doctrine. Sure you quote tradition, but is it binding to the “judging and appraising of doctrine” in and on the same level as Scripture is used?

Allow me to kindly and respectfully disagree with your statement regarding the power of binding and loosing to the “whole Church”. Not just anyone in the Catholic Church can bind and loose, but only the episcopate (office of bishops). Imagine if Jesus told all of his followers what He told to Peter and the Apostles regarding binding, loosing, forgiving, and retaining…you would have different sects and churches sprouting up like the Reformation Also, Christ did give all His apostles the authority to bind, loose, forgive, and retain, but only to Peter did He give the keys!

Eric

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

………….Same goes with my pastor, with whom I am confronting a matter of doctrine. That said, my wife continues to remind me that not all parishioners are as interested in the topic. They just like the pastor. Yep, I know what you’re talking about. I bet its true in some Catholic parishes too.

To be honest, couldn’t tell you what the televangelists teach. I know some are prosperity, some are other things. I’d watch EWTN before any of them. But I know the limits of my pastor, bishop, synod president. ** I know what they’re bound to by ordination.**

I am struck (actually thunderstruck) by the irony of the last sentence, the one that I have bolded. Please allow me to provide some context. I know that you will agree.

Two weekends ago I attended the ordination of a friend to the permanent deaconate. After a rigorous 4 year program, he and another 8 holy men were ordained by the Archbishop. At one point in this amazing ceremony, each man was asked to declare their obedience to the Archbishop AND his successors.

What struck me at that moment, and was highlighted by your statement, is that except for Luther’s disobedience to authority, Lutheranism would not exist.

You claim that your clergy are bound by their ordination. I would agree that that obedience is the ONLY way to protect ‘orthodoxy’, the only way to protect against heresy. So with all that in mind, what is it specifically and exactly Jon, which makes Luther’s disobedience acceptable to modern day Lutherans who so clearly do not allow individuals to rebel against their Bishops?

Topper

 

[commenter]

**
I have a great deal of respect for men like Matthew Harrison, and Will Weedon**, but I have no delusions regarding their fallibility. Same goes with my pastor, with whom I am confronting a matter of doctrine. That said, my wife continues to remind me that not all parishioners are as interested in the topic. They just like the pastor. Yep, I know what you’re talking about. I bet its true in some Catholic parishes too.

Jon

Regarding the part I bolded, if you respect those 2, I will read some of their work.

Regarding your last sentence, yes, it is true.

Regarding your wife’s reminder, I get the same from my wife, only instead of saying “not as interested” she would say most parishioners aren’t as “fanatic, obsessed, or just plain nuts” about doctrine as I am. Then she’ll point out the uncut lawn.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

………….**Same goes with my pastor, with whom I am confronting a matter of doctrine. **That said, my wife continues to remind me that not all parishioners are as interested in the topic. They just like the pastor. Yep, I know what you’re talking about. I bet its true in some Catholic parishes too.

To be honest, couldn’t tell you what the televangelists teach. I know some are prosperity, some are other things. I’d watch EWTN before any of them. But I know the limits of my pastor, bishop, synod president. ** I know what they’re bound to by ordination**.

I am struck (actually thunderstruck) by the irony of your last sentence, the one that I have bolded. Please allow me to provide some context and I know that you will agree.

Two weekends ago I attended the ordination of a friend to the permanent deaconate. After a rigorous 4 year program, he and another 8 holy men were ordained by the Archbishop. At one point in this amazing ceremony, each man was asked to pledge their obedience to the Archbishop AND his successors. This before three bishops, dozens and dozens of priests and another 50 or so deacons.

What struck me at that moment, and was highlighted today by your statement, is that without Luther’s disobedience to authority, Lutheranism would have never existed.

You claim that your clergy are bound by their ordination. I would agree that that obedience is the ONLY way to protect ‘orthodoxy’, the only way to protect against heresy. **So with all that in mind, what is it specifically and exactly Jon, which makes Luther’s doctrinal disobedience acceptable to modern day Lutherans who so clearly deny individuals the right to rebel doctrinally against their Bishops? **

Topper

 

[PRmerger]

I would like something from a Catholic document of antiquity which shows getting drunk before Mardi Gras is not an article of Catholic faith.

That’s not what I’ve been asking.

For as long as I have known Lutherans and been in dialogue with them I’ve been told that Sola Scriptura is one of the core doctrines of Lutheranism.

Of late, when it’s been shown that the doctrine of SS is self refuting, as the Bible never–not even once–espouses SS, the response is, “Well, SS is not a doctrine. It’s a hermeneutic principle”

And that means, apparently, that it’s okay to believe in SS even though it’s not found in the Bible.

I find this position to be disingenuous.

PR, you’re asking for something that’s assumed and common knowledge, and wasn’t a focus of those good people of antiquity

Kind of like the teachings on Mary’s Assumption and Mary’s IC?

Read here and understand what is explained.The guiding principle used in Lutheran study, contemplation and exegesis of scripture --that is, the prime hermeneutic principle– is that Scripture is takes precedence over all other writings. It is our practice. Our hermeneutic principle. It is not an article of faith, like what we profess in the creeds.

Are you saying that only what you profess in creeds is an article of faith?

Because I’m pretty sure that the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is an article of faith in Lutheranism, but I haven’t ever seen that in the creeds.

Also, I saw nothing–NOTHING–in the source you gave assumes SS to be a “hermeneutic principle”.

 

[PRmerger]

What struck me at that moment, and was highlighted today by your statement, is that without Luther’s disobedience to authority, Lutheranism would have never existed.

This is an excellent point.

I am astonished by the double standard here. Luther himself would not be permitted to do what he did to the CC in the Lutheran church.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

I am struck (actually thunderstruck) by the irony of your last sentence, the one that I have bolded. Please allow me to provide some context and I know that you will agree.

Two weekends ago I attended the ordination of a friend to the permanent deaconate. After a rigorous 4 year program, he and another 8 holy men were ordained by the Archbishop. At one point in this amazing ceremony, each man was asked to pledge their obedience to the Archbishop AND his successors. This before three bishops, dozens and dozens of priests and another 50 or so deacons.

What struck me at that moment, and was highlighted today by your statement, is that without Luther’s disobedience to authority, Lutheranism would have never existed.

You claim that your clergy are bound by their ordination. I would agree that that obedience is the ONLY way to protect ‘orthodoxy’, the only way to protect against heresy. **So with all that in mind, what is it specifically and exactly Jon, which makes Luther’s doctrinal disobedience acceptable to modern day Lutherans who so clearly deny individuals the right to rebel doctrinally against their Bishops? **

Topper

Topper,
Would you say that the instruction Luther received at Erfurt was good, Catholic teaching?
Do you think that the Church experience Luther and others in 1500’s Germany were subjected to represented what the faith was supposed to look like?
If you can answer this with an unqualified “yes”, then you have a good point.

IOW, I would expect my pastor, any pastor, to stand up when the leaders of our synod drift from orthodox Lutheran doctrine. Blind obedience is no better the prideful disobedience.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

This is an excellent point.

I am astonished by the double standard here. Luther himself would not be permitted to do what he did to the CC in the Lutheran church.

Not only that I highly doubt Luther would remotely approve of the divisions in the Lutheran Church today with the various Synods. Someone would have had to disagree with him and that was a giant “no-no.”

Mary.

 

[exnihilo]

Hi ex,
I would disagree generally with the premise, but more importantly with the part I bolded.
From my point of view, it is the reverse. We accept the possibility that other important articles of faith may or may not have been accounted for in written text. But that is not the point. The point is we have the written word of God, from which we can hold teachings and doctrines accountable. Its what we have, and that by grace. We know that, as regenerate, we live under grace.

Hey Jon,

If an important article of faith is not contained in Sacred Scripture then isn’t it subordinated to that which is in Scripture? Wether or not this is the intent it seems to me to be the practice. For instance the intercession of Saints is a tradition of the Church. But it is not directly commended in the Scripture, or at least the Protestant canon. So in practice it has been dropped as a discipline.

The problem is for many of the innovations today, the scripture is very clear, though certainly a deeper understanding of the text is required. And that is why sola scriptura, properly practiced, is not something the laity is expected to do, at least not within Lutheranism.
I would also contend that, for the most part, those who claim that female ordination, gay marriage, and other more modern ideas do so from the perspective of “we should ignore the cultural views of the era within which Jesus lived”. IOW, its a claim that we have to read scripture with a more “critical” view.

I would agree that the justification for some modern ideas is just as you say. It seems to me that in the practice of Sola Scriptura the lay people do perform the interpreting, there is no principle of unity, and no final arbiter of the truth of an idea. Thus we have the many divisions and no real way out of that condition. I’d say for me a major problem with the principle is that in practice it has not unified the Church. It is similar to what I’ve been astonished to hear people say, ‘communism would work, it has just never been tried properly’. How do we account for the failure of Sola Scriptura to bring unity to church? Is it that it isn’t really being practiced, even though so many Christian group say that they are?

 

[JonNC]

=exnihilo;13004423]Hey Jon,

If an important article of faith is not contained in Sacred Scripture then isn’t it subordinated to that which is in Scripture? Wether or not this is the intent it seems to me to be the practice. For instance the intercession of Saints is a tradition of the Church. But it is not directly commended in the Scripture, or at least the Protestant canon. So in practice it has been dropped as a discipline.

Hi Ex,
True, but even in the CC, invocation of the saints is not an article of faith. It is, as you say, a tradition. Perhaps there are examples of articles of faith in the CC that are not in the Lutheran tradition which are not explicit in scripture, but there is also a determination of what is, or is not, should be, or need not be binding on the conscience of the believer, and could even be in scripture. In short, it is not always a matter of explicitness in scripture.

I would agree that the justification for some modern ideas is just as you say. **It seems to me that in the practice of Sola Scriptura the lay people do perform the interpreting, there is no principle of unity, and no final arbiter of the truth of an idea. **Thus we have the many divisions and no real way out of that condition. I’d say for me a major problem with the principle is that in practice it has not unified the Church. It is similar to what I’ve been astonished to hear people say, ‘communism would work, it has just never been tried properly’. How do we account for the failure of Sola Scriptura to bring unity to church? Is it that it isn’t really being practiced, even though so many Christian group say that they are?

Here is where it needs to be stated that there are, indeed, different communions, traditions, that are categorized as “protestant”. There are some where what you say is the case. And even in Lutheranism, one sees variances, particularly recently. But these modern ideas are in fact a drifting away from sola scriptura, not a result of it.

How do we account the failure of Tradition and scripture, of the Magisterium, or the patriarchates of the church to keep, and return, unity to the Church? Where sola scriptura may have indeed failed, so have these, and what they all have in common is the fact that the Church and its leadership is made of fallible human beings, regardless of office or vocation, title or location.

Jon

 

[commenter]

How do we account the failure of Tradition and scripture, of the Magisterium, or the patriarchates of the church to keep, and return, unity to the Church? Where sola scriptura may have indeed failed, so have these, and what they all have in common is the fact that the Church and its leadership is made of fallible human beings, regardless of office or vocation, title or location.

Jon

Jon,

The person who wants to bring about religious “unity” is Hilary Clinton, starting with the abortion issue.

I wouldn’t say that the Magisterium has failed to achieve unity - any more than I would say Sola Scriptura has failed to achieve timeless works of Art (and don’t get me started about the SS Country-and-Western music - my “favorite” is “Dropkick Me Jesus Through the Goalposts of Life”). Unity, like Art, is a good thing, but not what the Magisterium is primarily for.

The Magisterium has helped unify many Christians, past and present, but the primary function is preserving the Truth. Abortion hurts people. Even if 99% of Catholics ignore that Truth, the Magisterium is still a reliable guide to those who listen (obey) it. The Magisterium is an obvious obstacle to religious, media, and political leaders who crave religious unity (like the National Council of Churches).

The Magisterium is increasingly a rallying, unifying point for orthodox Protestants as well as Catholics. My detailed analysis of American culture finds that in 2014 there were 23,472 times as many media attacks on the Catholic Church - specifically the Magisterium - as there were on all the Sola Scriptura communities combined. And this research took me at least 5 minutes of serious thinking about it.

 

[exnihilo]

True, but even in the CC, invocation of the saints is not an article of faith. It is, as you say, a tradition.

There are anathemas for those who disclaim the intercession of saints. This seems to me to be an important point of doctrine.

How do we account the failure of Tradition and scripture, of the Magisterium, or the patriarchates of the church to keep, and return, unity to the Church? Where sola scriptura may have indeed failed, so have these, and what they all have in common is the fact that the Church and its leadership is made of fallible human beings, regardless of office or vocation, title or location.

There is a principle of unity proclaimed by the Catholic Church, communion with the Bishop of Rome. Communion with the Bishop of Rome does not guarantee unity, after all anyone can chose not to be in such communion. The Orthodox have much greater unity than Protestants. The Orthodox don’t practice Sola Scriptura. It seems to me in practice impossible for Sola Scriptura to provide unity. If unity is a good we should pursue it seems to me that Sola Scriptura has been nothing but a hinderance to that. I know you’d say Sola Scriptura has not always been practiced as intended. And I will not disagree with that. But still I see the heart of the idea, even if improperly practiced, as being the cause of division.

 

[benjohnson]

I’m not quite on board with assuming that ‘unity’ is somehow an indication of right-practice.

That our church is small is of no concern to me - Noah’s Ark had 8 people.

 

[exnihilo]

I’m not quite on board with assuming that ‘unity’ is somehow an indication of right-practice.

I agree that unity is not naturally a sign of right-practice or belief. But it could be due to supernatural work. Regardless we have to contend with Paul’s words to the Corinthians, ‘I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.’ The problem we face is this letter doesn’t spell out exactly the limits of this unity, if any.

 

[JonNC]

=exnihilo;13007231]There are anathemas for those who disclaim the intercession of saints. This seems to me to be an important point of doctrine.

My mistake. You are correct. It is the practice of invocation that is not required.

There is a principle of unity proclaimed by the Catholic Church, communion with the Bishop of Rome. Communion with the Bishop of Rome does not guarantee unity, after all anyone can chose not to be in such communion. The Orthodox have much greater unity than Protestants. The Orthodox don’t practice Sola Scriptura. It seems to me in practice impossible for Sola Scriptura to provide unity. If unity is a good we should pursue it seems to me that Sola Scriptura has been nothing but a hinderance to that. I know you’d say Sola Scriptura has not always been practiced as intended. And I will not disagree with that. But still I see the heart of the idea, even if improperly practiced, as being the cause of division.

I don’t think I necessarily disagree with any points, except the last statement.
Who are the Orthodox in unity with, other than other Orthodox? Lutherans, by and large, are two groups - LWF, or ILC. Some both, some neither. What one can’t do is say, well Lutherans aren’t in unity with Anabaptists, and that’s because of sola scriptura.
I just don’t see that as the problem, particularly since Anabaptists, Calvinists, and Lutherans were of essentially different movements from the start, not necessarily related to sola scriptura.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

The person who wants to bring about religious “unity” is Hilary Clinton, starting with the abortion issue.

I wouldn’t say that the Magisterium has failed to achieve unity - any more than I would say Sola Scriptura has failed to achieve timeless works of Art (and don’t get me started about the SS Country-and-Western music - my “favorite” is “Dropkick Me Jesus Through the Goalposts of Life”). Unity, like Art, is a good thing, but not what the Magisterium is primarily for.

The Magisterium has helped unify many Christians, past and present, but the primary function is preserving the Truth. Abortion hurts people. Even if 99% of Catholics ignore that Truth, the Magisterium is still a reliable guide to those who listen (obey) it. The Magisterium is an obvious obstacle to religious, media, and political leaders who crave religious unity (like the National Council of Churches).

The Magisterium is increasingly a rallying, unifying point for orthodox Protestants as well as Catholics. My detailed analysis of American culture finds that in 2014 there were 23,472 times as many media attacks on the Catholic Church - specifically the Magisterium - as there were on all the Sola Scriptura communities combined. And this research took me at least 5 minutes of serious thinking about it.

I don’t have much time at the moment, but I don’t want to ignore this post. This is a fascinating statement that I plan to comment on.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

I don’t have much time at the moment, but I don’t want to ignore this post. This is a fascinating statement that I plan to comment on.

Jon

I look forward to your comments!

Here in Washington state we had a Pro-Life rally - most of the people there we Catholic, so I certainly do appreicate the Catholic Magisterium’s teaching role.

 

[benjohnson]

I agree that unity is not naturally a sign of right-practice or belief. But it could be due to supernatural work.

That the Holy Spirit is working the Catholic church can’t be denied based on the fruits of your communion.

I know the Holy Spirit has to be working in our church - I get the feeling that our church leaders couldn’t run a lemonade stand sometimes, and yet here we stand.

 

[JonNC]

Sorry for the delay.

=commenter;13006748]Jon,

The person who wants to bring about religious “unity” is Hilary Clinton, starting with the abortion issue.

Actually, I think she wants to bring about religious conformity, perhaps even coerced, as we see in the HHS Mandate.

I wouldn’t say that the Magisterium has failed to achieve unity - any more than I would say Sola Scriptura has failed to achieve timeless works of Art (and don’t get me started about the SS Country-and-Western music - my “favorite” is “Dropkick Me Jesus Through the Goalposts of Life”). Unity, like Art, is a good thing, but not what the Magisterium is primarily for.

Yes, I agree. The job of the Magisterium for the CC is doctrine, ISTM.

The Magisterium has helped unify many Christians, past and present, but the primary function is preserving the Truth. Abortion hurts people. Even if 99% of Catholics ignore that Truth, the Magisterium is still a reliable guide to those who listen (obey) it. The Magisterium is an obvious obstacle to religious, media, and political leaders who crave religious unity (like the National Council of Churches).

Well, groups such as the NCC wants unity at the expense of doctrine. The LCMS is criticized for similar reasons as the CC in this regard.

The Magisterium is increasingly a rallying, unifying point for orthodox Protestants as well as Catholics. My detailed analysis of American culture finds that in 2014 there were 23,472 times as many media attacks on the Catholic Church - specifically the Magisterium - as there were on all the Sola Scriptura communities combined. And this research took me at least 5 minutes of serious thinking about it.

This is an interesting thought, but not for the point you make. On the contrary, I believe the CC has rallied to its defense a number of non-Catholics communions one might not have expected (including mine), at least on moral issues - abortion, and the related HHS Mandate, same gender “marriage”, even female ordination, etc. Further, the LCMS fight against the EEOC in the Tabor Hosanna case benefits the CC as well.
This could create, and I believe have created, other avenues of dialogue between orthodox Lutherans and the CC.

Jon

 

[commenter]

This is an interesting thought, but not for the point you make. On the contrary, I believe the CC has rallied to its defense a number of non-Catholics communions one might not have expected (including mine), at least on moral issues - abortion, and the related HHS Mandate, same gender “marriage”, even female ordination, etc. Further, the LCMS fight against the EEOC in the Tabor Hosanna case benefits the CC as well.
This could create, and I believe have created, other avenues of dialogue between orthodox Lutherans and the CC.

Jon

Of course, the danger is not only that churches will fail to “rally to the standard of Truth”; the greater danger is that they will redefine “truth” to suit the secular society. The formerly-reliable-now-secularized churches are still “rallying”. They still see themselves as prophetic. They never noticed that they became secularized.

I’m sure at least some people in what is now ELCA, for instance, noticed the United Church of Christ unknowingly losing its vision decades ago. So they realized that vision loss is a possible outcome for churches (that most of them did not want). That realization did not stop at least some of the ELCA leaders from taking some partial steps halfway down the same road they saw the UCC had travelled a decade or two earlier.

It’s like when a few guys stop at the bar, the first effect of alcohol is to reduce your perception of the effects of alcohol - on you. It sounds like many orthodox Christians are looking to some one party to be the designated driver, someone with a charism (brake pedal) that they don’t have, and only lately see the need for. Guess who?